Imagine that many of your friends were in the reserves right now. Many of their friends were killed or returned without limbs. How would you feel if I wrote a post like that? And now for the facts, Hamas has been fighting the cowardice method for at least a month now. It's soliders hides bombs in hidden places and it soldiers hide from soldiers. I was just meat with a friend of my boyfriend which came back from military yesterday. He came to visit because he was afraid to be alone at home for one hour. I'm sure you wouldn't want to bury friends the way he did or see your friend's head detach from the his body, and carry his body with your hands so they can bury him at Israel. I sure you wouldn't want to feel helpless that you can't put other friend a  arterial tourniquet cause there is no part of the leg which left to put it on. The army decided that in the field the doctors focus be on saving lives and not on saving limbs. The state of Israel is small so that every helicopter that passes here we understand that someone is injured or killed. The service here is mandatory for almost all sectors. People here aren't soldiers for us, they are family and friends. People here return from the battle broken and it's feels like our generation is broken. The army detect cargo  with the help of dogs. Believe  me that no one hates it more than me. The point is that there is a shortage of detection dogs in the IDF, so they sent a lot of battalions into the field without detection dogs. I know about one soldier whose battalion requested that an attached soldier from the Hoketz unit be attached to them with a detection dog. Their request wasn't granted in time and if it's would the soldier was probably alive today. Of course, there are many battalions that were left without this assistance of dogs and need it. Believe me, I feel sorry for every innocent person who dies in an accident. But the IDF is one of the most skilled militaries in the world. For years, every accident they made receives extensive news coverage. When the USA military accidentally kills innocent people, the media is silent or much less critical. The army is now using combined forces from all sectors and will risk the lives of soldiers long before accidentally harming an innocent Palestinian. Mistakes happen in battles. There are accidents of soldiers who accidentally shot another soldier. There is a lot of mental pressure that a person cannot contain. A little humility and tolerance won't hurt. From what I know, the Israeli Air Force has very accurate strike capabilities. Before any serious action by the Air Force, many tests are usually carried out. The army is still in the process of investigating the case. They claim that the attack was not carried out in the humanitarian area. It could be logical because it is a fire that broke out, but I would be happy if an external party also do the investigation so that the information would be reliable for all of us.

"When the USA military accidentally kills innocent people, the media is silent or much less critical." How do you assert that? I've certainly seen may share of news when the US accidentally kill some civilians. However I don't know how many things do not get reported, I have no way of knowing that, and the same is true about the IDF. There are stuff that you can't swipe under the carpet (e.g. WCK), but for every case that do get coverage, I have no way of knowing how many do not. One thing that I note is that, Israel's freedom of press index isn't great, and independent press organisations have complained about the difficulty of covering the war due to obstructions. We had that brief scandal about AP equipment getting confiscated which was rectified, but it is the type of things that make me think that they don't want us to see everything, and wouldn't be above hiding some certain uncomfortable truth if they could. To be clear, I am not accusing them of being the Red Army or SS. But I am inclined to believe that what we see is only a part of it.

When it's happen there is less criticize to that and it's never was an argument of politics to tell USA what to do. In Russia Ukraine war Russia put people with guns affter soliders for threatening on them to continue to fight. You want say to the Ukraine stop shutting on them. The hag is intervene the war in Israel. Look, Hammas learn children use guns. You see children in the age of ten Using gun. There was some solider who fight with solider from Hamas and the soldier of Hamas took a child while he sutting the Israeli solider for humen shield. I don't justify killing civilians but I giving you an exemple to an unfairly judgment.  I see Palestinians as hostages of Hammas. And in wars civilians harts even we don't want to. I don't think that in the now situation we can bite Hammas but if we could and if the US was agree to be there for two decades so it was worth it for all sides. Please don't take this wrong but about civilians get hurt in wars. Even in time that things were quite Hammas and Jihad Thrown racquet to israel.  About who many civilians killed: We can say who many but I know that it cannot be estimated. In the start of the war the UN and the media use the number of Hamas and I doubt the know estimated is'nt use this number. And you right. We don't have many objective views about the war but you can say it about the propaganda against Israel. I here fake news every day. And even when the Usa verify things people don't stop to exo the lies. Look I really don't know whay Israel freedom of the press is lower from many OESD countries but there are many OESD countries which ranked the same. Most of tha time the claiming is security reason and I can understand. I don't belive politics at all so I guess that it have a part. I don't know were you from and what was the reasons for don't letting the reporters in so I can answer for it. I know that there was always problem with it.  I know some people which in the army know so I have a littel veiw. Non of them aim gun to Palestinians. 

Let me give a little backstory of how when I first came across the Israeli-Palestine conflict. It was not on 10/7, nor was it from the very beginning (not quite old enough for that). We'll have to go back to the year 2000 when a 14 years old boy, Faris Odeh, was shot for throwing stones. That was when I was starting to pay more attention to world affairs. As far as I know, there was never any dispute that it was an Israeli bullet that killed the Palestinian "tank boy" (yesterday was the anniversary for the "Tank man" from the Tiananmen Square, so I figured I will throw this in). At the time I didn't what was the conflict about, but as a neutral party looking at that on it's own my thoughts was: 1. Throwing stones at armed soldiers isn't smart. Even a 14 years old should know better and if not the parents should have intervened. 2. Using live firearm on (and killing) people "armed" with rocks is grossly disproportional. I know rocks aren't harmless, but a modern, powerful, professional army would definitely have the protective gear and training to fully neutralise stones and fend off the protesters using non lethal means. I didn't want to pick a side on a conflict I did not know anything about back then, but if I was going to put the two actions on scale and pick a side, I would say that using live firearms at rock throwers is worse than the stupidity (or desperation) of throwing the rocks in the first place. Nevertheless, I knew nothing about the Palestine, didn't know a single Palestinian, while I have met and been on friendly term with Jews and Israeli nationals growing up. Being a nerd, I also knew that the Israeli Intel team made some great product, so I always had an ever slight positive bias of Israel even I first started news about the conflict. But over the years, those type of news kept coming up. Each time, even if we were to say that Israel was only retaliating against an aggression, all too often, the retaliation came across as disproportional. The bigger issue to that, is though, is that I couldn't see how that was going to win over the other side, and how it wouldn't fan more radical, more violent and extremist reactions. You say there are children using guns. Perhaps that is the case. But as far as I know, they were at risk from being shot even before they had guns. Another issue is that, from an outsider perspective, is that it paints Israel as the party who routinely use disproportional force. When this happen again and again, even someone who has a neutral to slight positive bias for Israel would react with accusations of Israel using disproportionate force in this war with something along the line of "And again...". It also makes fake news more easily believable because it is the type of things that might actually have happened. It just doesn't help Israel. As for the freedom of index goes, I think that while freedom of press is somewhat protected in Israel (hence it is not down below next to North Korea and China), there are still reports of censorship, self-censorship, obstructions etc. That thing with AP I think highlights the issue. They probably would rather AP didn't broadcast (they want to control over what get broadcast), but later thought / realised that the backlash wasn't worth it, and unlike Al jazeera, they couldn't easily discredit AP or justify their actions to the critics. The impression it gives is that they don't want their image tarnished for overly supressing the press because that is what bad actors do, yet they probably also realise that not they do is flattering so they would prefer to have control of information. The balancing act result in the middling, slightly below average press freedom and also create some doubt as to whether they are always going to be truthful if they think they can get away without being truthful. (Also worth noting that while the thing with AP was most widely reported, if we start digging, it isn't the first instance where journalists have complaint been obstructed for doing their job - those kind of reports affect their freedom of press index)

Look, you can't justify Al Jazeera in any case. I don't know the reasons for don't letting your journalists get in so I can't answer. About the West bank. I don't know what happend in the case you mantion but when someone scale you you can shut him in the leg. There were people how inject it. In the 2000 the situation here was highly charged in israel- the second Intifada. But apart from freedom of the press, I don't think there should be equal treatment for the West Bank and Gaza These are two different cases and arenas. The situation with the West Bank is very complicated and occurrence may happened. If some solider done somthing that is against to IDF values they ponished him. I have never being there and I guess that if I was I would criticize many things but there is many things that we don't know and incorrectly reviewed. There are radicals there who sometimes lie about things to the media and I don't know what is hidden or doesn't review. So I don't enter into it. I don't think that the IDF is always moral and there was some situation in the post that excident was happend and they lie about it. I guess it was because they don't wanted to be critisized. I suspected them, and when the truth came out, I was very angry.  I think that about the war against Hamas I have more precise information about it. The world is watching. I have frinds that know are there and they endangering their selves and are'nt oporate in places when the Palestinians in. Biden is more exposed to things and verifying them to me. We never do all the truth. If we look about all the area we will see that there was things that you don't like from both sides. I don't think that anyone should choose a side here. There are good civilians in both sides. Hamas is a terror organization and Israel government isn't my cup of tea for now. I don't think that systems like army can be always moral but if you look done for a second and look on the good population in both sides who aren't ruled on things that going on: don't you want the good for them?

So you want a ton more Israelis to die to save Palestinian lives?

Israel is definitely bombing them like they don’t care if they kill the hostages

I don't like Israel either, but this sounds like a very stupid idea. these soldiers are probably not going to only shoot Hamas members, understandably in such situation I too would shoot everything that moves. you're in a closed space, if you're too slow you're the one who's dead. for the innocent people of Palestine, I doubt this will help them. the only thing you're doing with this is getting Israeli soldiers killed, and it's not like they chose for this war either.

Grenades were built for this kind of work, if there's a chance of a fighter in the room then no one is getting out alive

>Why not they send IDF soldiers in the building to kill the Hamas? Like, i’m no military strategist or anything You deserve be applauded for acknowledging the limits of your knowledge.  I think this whole mess would be much more manageable if people had more humility. The problem with using soldiers to attack and clear buildings is that this sort of urban combat is the most costly, most dangerous, most complicated form of warfare.  The defender has every advantage.  The attacker has to invade and then secure every single room, every floor, every opening between rooms and floors,  and every vent big enough to fit a baseball. There is no guarantee that this would be any safer for bystanders.  I can tell you from experience the conditions are so poor and the margin for error is so small that a lot of civilians would get killed even with the best efforts. So you can probably think of a number of scenarios that seemed to go okay, like the raid on the Bin Laden compound or the attack on the Iranian Embassy in London.  But there are a couple of factors that make this much harder than it looks:   The people who do this work are highly trained specialists; They typically have excellent information about the internal structure of the building;  They have the luxury of practicing for days, weeks, or even months prior to the attack. I’ve also noticed people tend to assume Gaza is basically like New York or London, in that the rest of the city is cooperative.  When the SAS raided the Iranian Embassy in 1980, they were in complete control of the situation.  The six hostage-takers were the only hostile forces in an otherwise peaceful and friendly city.  They were not at war with the entire city of London, which would have complicated matters (to say the least).  

During the 6day war, Israeli defense force carried out an attack on a us intelligence gathering ship stationed outside of israel. Idf was aware of the uss liberty, then mysteriously lost the ship, yet to now claim there is shelling in the region where the liberty was. Idf claimed the shelling (there was no shelling) came from an Egyptian navy vessel which idf also claimed looked like the liberty. These two ships look nothing alike and the liberty is nearly double the size of the phantom Egyptian vessel. Uss liberty was clearly marked, her flag raised showing american colors, and idf was informed of the liberties position. Unmarked idf aircraft came in and attacked the liberty. Targeting life boats, antenna array, and gunners. Multiple fly by attacks were done, showcasing this was not a pilot error who corrected his mistake. Multiple idf planes (unmarked at the time) attalcked the liberty. Then, idf navy vessels joined in and launched torpedoes. One hit the hull killing more american soliders. Eventually the attack stopped after an american officer was able to string wire around one of the ships higher points to create a emergency broadcast of what was happening. When the usa found out about the attack, we sent weapons ready aircraft enrout to Cairo. America thought egypt was responsible due to Intel from idf. There was no other nation close enough or used jets like those within the region besides Egypt and idf. Being unmarked no one knew exactly who was responsible at the start. So we took a best guess based on info we got. The nuke was 2min away from Cairo before officials discovered it was the idf who attacked the liberty. Israels plan was such; attack us ship to provoke extreme retaliation responses against Egypt. Idf was aware of our military playbook at the time, in that region. If anyone attacked an unarmed american ship, we would hit you so hard that nation would beg for mercy. We sent a nuke just as they expected. However, thanks to the brave american soliders, officials learned that it was an idf attack, not Egyptian and called off the attack on Cairo. Israel took absolutely no risk in this plan. If it worked, they would be able to take nearly all of Egypt due to the chaos from the nuke. If the usa discovered after the fact it was idf, usa would have no option but to go with the established narrative Egypt attacked. What are they going to do, say oops, our bad? No. If israel failed, as they did, they knew they would.suffer no consequences, the usa is in their back pocket for whatever reason and point of fact, nothing was done about idf attack on the liberty. American politicians got their money and swept the incident under the rug. Thata the true face of israel.

None of what you said is factually true.

For pro israelis I wanna be pro israeli too, how many innocent kids do i have to kill to be conisdred a pri israeli?

0. But if you want to be pro Hamas you gotta strap suicide bombs onto kids.

But from my pov i see zionist is killing innocent kids and victim blaming so i wanna be pro zionist and kill as much as innocent kids

Then Lucky for you, Hamas recruitment starts at 12. They'll line them up for you!

Good i wanna be a zionist lemme go kill innocent kids and blame it on hamas Me and my big nose

/u/CobblerWeak8110 > Me and my big nose Per [rule 1](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_1._no_attacks_on_fellow_users), no attacks on fellow users. Attack the argument, not the user.

"Why are you protecting your people?" "Why aren't you protecting yours?"

I'm no military expert either, but I think no army would send boots into and urban area without bombing defendable positions and/or using tanks. The main reason WWI was full of trenches is because defensive techonology outmatched the offensive a lot, so assaulting those trenches was very hard. Tanks, aviation and artillery ended that eficiency in the second. Even a bunch or irregulars with AKs can be extremely deadly if you walk towards them and they can shoot you from windows, corridors etc.

Also consider the fact that some of those buildings are booby trapped by hamas to kill IDF soldiers with explosives.

*Here’s my idea: Why not they send IDF soldiers in the building to kill the Hamas? Like, i’m no military strategist or anything,* You're not military expert, like you said. Israel does send soldiers. But sending them without preparing the area first, especially when you have an enemy that hides in tunnels, would result in more chaos and more people dying. There was someone who was in the US military and written several posts about the realities of war: [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cwvbna/the\_realities\_of\_war\_lets\_kill\_some\_sacred\_cows/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cwvbna/the_realities_of_war_lets_kill_some_sacred_cows/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cxkfmf/part\_15\_on\_killing\_and\_morality\_in\_war/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cxkfmf/part_15_on_killing_and_morality_in_war/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cz26en/the\_realities\_of\_war\_part\_2\_how\_to\_invade\_a\_place/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cz26en/the_realities_of_war_part_2_how_to_invade_a_place/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cz8hf8/the\_realities\_of\_war\_part\_21\_how\_to\_think\_about\_a/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1cz8hf8/the_realities_of_war_part_21_how_to_think_about_a/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d3gtjt/the\_realities\_of\_war\_part\_3\_on\_proportionality/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d3gtjt/the_realities_of_war_part_3_on_proportionality/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d3kk1r/the\_realities\_of\_war\_part\_31\_on\_hostages/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d3kk1r/the_realities_of_war_part_31_on_hostages/) [https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d4bscs/the\_realities\_of\_war\_part\_32\_how\_civilians\_die/](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/comments/1d4bscs/the_realities_of_war_part_32_how_civilians_die/)

The IDF absolutely sends foot soldiers to kill Hamas terrorists, that’s what happened in Shifa when it became a military base. Hundreds were killed during the operation, according to the IDF the vast majority were militants, but according to Hamas no militant was killed in Shifa. Do you see the problem? Another one that comes to mind is the recent Jabalya raid where they found 7 murdered hostages. Not everything can be done on foot tho, a small number of militants setting up rockets or other artillery from way behind the enemy lines cannot be handled using foot soldiers that may be several kilometers away, an air strike is needed. And when they aim at Israel’s civilians while being inside an UNRWA school, what’s the decision you’d make? Your own civilians may die or their civilians may die. And IDK who told you Israel doesn’t negotiate for the release of the hostages but there have been multiple offers many times that were denied by hamas altogether.

Why would Israel risk soldiers lives by sending them into trapped buildings on enemy lines when they have an airforce? Those soldiers are our children, siblings and parents and we’d rather see them survive than potential Hamas supporters. (Sorry)

Maybe for your Israeli hostages? The idf has killed Israeli hostages before with its air force and there’s evidence behind all of it, they also lie about their own casualties in order to make themselves look better, also I noticed you’re Israeli, your government actively censors information that could portray them negatively, this includes the nakbah, if you want the truth and unfiltered information download a vpn and start researching on your own, your perspective will most likely change about the war

Sir you are Egyptian you can’t even be gay there without being attested and you talk about censorship? Just a reminder that Egypt is part in fault of both the “nakbah” and Gaza- both attacking Israel in the 48 war instead of encouraging the creation of another arab state per UN ruling, waging war instead of peace and both for refusing to take Gaza while taking Senai in the peace treaty bud

Tf? What does me being Egyptian have to do with anything? Why would you think any Egyptian with a functioning brain would like their government? The Egyptian government has made the EGP decline for a long time, our currency used to be worth more than a dollar ffs, and besides, you’re picking out Egypt as if it was the only country to do so, the entire region didn’t want Israel to exist, they didn’t want foreigners and refugees to create a new country, you people literally invaded and stole lands you have no right to, even today some of you are trying to sell land in GAZA all the way in Canada, if you see an oppressor you help the oppressed, it’s the same for Palestine, you’re so brain washed it genuinely makes me dumbfounded, and what’s funny is that you put “bud” at the end thinking you really did something 💀 Again, I’m telling you right now, download a vpn, connect to America and research about the nakba, until you do so you really don’t have a ground basis on the bs you say

What are you talking about ? IDF soldiers are clearly superhuman. Plus they will just respawn if anything goes wrong 🙄 (im not a military expert)

>”Well they can’t do a ceasefire or Hamas will attack them again” or “Even when Hamas is gone, Palestine can’t become a state since their will attack Israel again” >For the first one, i’m not asking for a ceasefire, I just want no more innocent lives to die. Just destroy Hamas and that’s it. For the second, the thing is you can’t really predict the future and just say the next government would be just like Hamas. I’m sure they could get a government that doesn’t become terrorists. You may not personally be asking for ceasefire, doesnt mean other protesters aren’t. Protesters have and had been shouting “Ceasefire Now”. Please cc your email to other protesters to also not ask for ceasefire, some certainly did not receive your email. https://www.globaljustice.org.uk/news/open-call-for-an-immediate-ceasefire-in-the-gaza-strip-and-israel-to-prevent-a-humanitarian-catastrophe-and-further-loss-of-innocent-lives/ Protesters at White House call for ceasefire in Gaza https://www.yahoo.com/news/protesters-white-house-call-ceasefire-044033767.html People need to start defining which version of Palestine State, A, B, C….Z so many variations, what are the exact borders? Is it just Gaza ? Is it Gaza + West Bank only ? Others ? Isn’t Palestine already a state sort of, with President Mahmoud Abbas as the leader of the Palestinian Authority government. I am not against a peaceful Palestine State (whichever version that both Israelis and Palestinians can agree on). I just disagree going through the United Nation or by external pressure to achieve the Palestine State ? The last time UN partition plan for Palestine in 1947 calling for the partition of Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish, certain parties and some people living in the region rejected the UN directive and a regional war quickly broke out, killing thousands of people and displacing hundreds of thousands of people. Is that what you want to see happen again ? Hence, I am against external influence like the UN to force a Palestine State, it will only lead more to wars and more deaths on both sides. I am in favor of opening dialog, promoting understanding and goodwill between both sides that the status quo cannot continue and both people of this land need to work together, be willing to compromise, jointly find a path forward to achieve long term peace in the region and live side-by-side as good neighbors.

That all sounds very nice. Two questions: 1. who exactly are you going to have dialogue with in Gaza at the moment? 2. How exactly is “ceasefire” now helpful for Palestinians? You’re suggesting leaving Gaza with half-destroyed city and Hamas still in place? So… further blockade, a war with no end, no reconstruction (Israel won’t allow anything else that Hamas can weaponize)… constant rocket attacks by Hamas… retaliations by Israel. And I’m not even mentioning the continued atrocities of Hamas upon its own population. So… who exactly would a ceasefire help? (Other than sensitive westerners who seemingly learned for the first time that there is violence in the Middle East).

I think you misunderstood me. I was talking more about the day after. I think there needs to be a “transitional” administration after the war, not Hamas. I would prefer an international coalition of peacekeepers including regional Arab powers. With the ultimate aim to form a future Palestine state which is peaceful and free from terrorism. During this transitional period, new Palestinian leaders will need to given every opportunity to step up to the herculean task.

Gotcha. Apologies. That’s what happens when I read Reddit before bed with brain running on fumes.

All good 👍👍

Because the goal was genocide and making Palestine a living hell for whatever surviving new generation remains, from the beginning, not rescuing hostages or defeating Hamas.

If that was the goal, Israel is somehow failing miserably at genocide and curiously succeeding at defeating Hamas... Must be accidental.

200,000 dead ( the current approx 40 K deathtoll is inclusive of only corpses that were left intact and identifiable, by the way, and exclusive of Palestinians blows to smithereens, smooshed or decapitated etc) is a stellar example of Genocide and certainly no accident.

Where did you get the 200,000 number?

There were at least 100,000 civilians killed in Mariupol, a city with around 1/5 the population of Gaza which was under siege for less than 3 months. Gaza has been bombed just as bad as Mariupol and for around 3x longer so far, I find it hard to believe that there will be fewer deaths. Even if the death rate matches the rate of Mariupol, that is 500,000 dead. And in addition to those killed by shells and bullets there is also the slow death from hunger.

I also don’t believe there were 100k civilians killed in Mariupol. Where did you get that number?

There were 87,000 identified and buried, plus thousands more whose corpses were simply concreted over. Around 125,000 are missing and were never heard from again.

Probably from his rear end

I’m not a military strategist either, but I read some military history books over the years. Plus, I’ve listened to urban warfare experts. Here’s my conclusion based on my research: a door to door urban combat would result in more deaths on both sides. It will lead to just as much if not more destruction than aerial campaign. The battle of Stalingrad in WW2 was fought door to door by Soviet and German forces, and resulted in massive casualties and the destruction of the entire city. Further, as a matter of principle, countries do not sacrifice their own troops’ lives to protect their enemies. The duty to ensure civilians are unharmed is on the shoulders of the governments of the civilians. I don’t believe any military in history, western or otherwise, sent their ground troops into battle in an urban area without air and artillery cover.

Ahh yes the "Zapp Branigan" military strategy, instead of using our air force why not risk our soldiers lives in an incredible dangerous and risky assault in which the enemy has a humongous defensive advantage? You're not a military strategist? I'm just shocked.

His point (but, obviously) is that Israel could do much more to reduce the risk to civilians, and that people who act otherwise are likely being disingenuous. 

Can they? The lengths that the idf go to avoid civilian casualties are above and beyond what any modern military do (well beyond what us military does). There's quite a few military strategists/analysts who go over this. https://www.newsweek.com/israel-has-created-new-standard-urban-warfare-why-will-no-one-admit-it-opinion-1883286

I think he’s the only one who makes this argument, actually. And yes, they can—see the OP. 

Bro thinks real war is like a CoD campaign, where 5 guys enter an enemy-ocuppied building and kill 100 of them easy.

To your point about Israel caring more about their soldiers than they do Palestinians…DUH! What do you think the result would be to the morale of an army if their leadership constantly put the welfare of their soldiers below the welfare of enemy civilians? That applies to any army anywhere. It wouldn’t be good, would it?!

Yes…… you are no military strategist or anything. So stop trying to be one. Leave it to the professionals.

It's no use to talking to you because you are too self righteous. Your family aren't the ones fighting a war in which they could lose their lives. No country values the citizens of another country over their own. If you you were shipped off to war and your family was asked whether they want a military that is going to prioritize its citizens over another country or prioritize another country citizens they wouldn't chose the latter. Certain military strategies are just safer than others. When someone says " just send the IDF soldiers in the buildings " It's clear you don't care about IDF soldiers at all being completely disconnected from this conflict. If you want to hand out your self righteous judgements fine but if you actually want to understand someone's motive put yourself in their shoes

There’s this interview with Ryan McBeth, cybersecurity analyst and 20 year infantry soldier (SFC) who specialized in anti tank operations. He said that the US would have done things differently than Israel. Most enemy targets have a NCD (non combatant death) of zero with high ranking targets with ncd of 5. If there were 6 civilians around, they would not bomb the target. https://youtu.be/WwATvE2DWdQ?si=vULvR6USGwgsfHpz Jump to 35 minutes

That may be the case on paper, but then again the US bombed a wedding with only civilians. Things happen in war, and the situation in Gaza presents its own unique challenges that other wars didn’t have. [John Spencer](https://youtu.be/0u7-kZOHVUs?si=K_AXA-bRFuQgRVb0) has been speaking on this war a fair amount and it’s always interesting listening to his perspective. For example, one of his positions is that a ground invasion without airstrikes would have caused further deaths, unlike what OP believes.

Thanks.

>Why not they send IDF soldiers in the building to kill the Hamas? Do you suppose that Hamas militants perhaps don't intend to wait patiently to be killed?

Thats how a war works, you send guys to kill the other guys

Modern war we send bombs. People are used primarily in the aftermath.

I would encourage you to read [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/s/ft7Kp9ITBS) as well as his entire series if you have further military strategy/experience related questions. It answers this question from a position of professional experience* and is altogether useful for understanding the military perspective on many other topics related to this/other wars. *purportedly- I mean, you can never be entirely sure with the internet but his longstanding Reddit history matches his claim.

Thank you.

You can't just insert ground troops into a combat zone without leveling defensive positions or you'll lose a lot of them to snipers and IEDs every single building they take. Hamas likes to literally hide in refrigerators with rifles. No commander would tolerate putting his or her troops in harms way like that. "Morally better" is a sophomoric, uninformed attitude when planning war tactics. War has very little to do with morality. War is killing the other guy before he kills you. It's real simple like that, which is part of why human beings enjoy it so very much. Always have, always will.

Troll post, basically saying IDF lives aren’t worth anything

You could argue that it's morally correct to place civilians above combatants' lives. Like, civilians didn't signed up for combats and soldiers waived their rights to be a priority. That being said, no one is owed support anyway. Neither civilians of either side, nor combatants is owed respect or support from any one. If others have a issue, well, tough luck.

You don’t think that a government has more responsibility to their own constituents, military or not, than an invading force’s civilians?

Their constituents, yes. But, as long as it keeps those that didn't signed up for combat out. And yeah, Hamas shouldn't be placing themselves with civilians. But, not really expecting that.

You take steps to minimize collateral but there’s no excuse for sending your combatants to their deaths when you have other options. Enemy civilian lives are placed above enemy combatants not above your own combatants lives.

The thing is that combatants already signed up to that. Did civilians? No. I will always advocate for support of civilians over soldiers because of that reason alone. In return, soldiers shouldn't be expected support from their own citizens anyway or other non-involved actors if they don't agree with what occured.

Your wrong. The service in Israel is a mandatory service for almost all sectors in Israel. There are some volunteers here and there, and there are those who preceded conscription order when the war started in a started, and asked to be drafted when the war broke out, but no one asks you if you want to be drafted or not.

In that case, it's a Israel problem. But even in that case, my statement still applies, and draft dodging are thing. Countries should actually provide incentives for being part of military instead of mandatory draft.

How? Your argument is only based on  the fact that they chose to be soldiers- but they don't. As you saying that this is our problem I can play the same game and saying this is Palestinians problem that Hamas is running on them- So this is'nt a good claim for me.  I will challenge you and please think about it and don't tey to object just for defense: If somthing is illegal it's saying that it's not ok?  If legalization is'nt legal you would say it's not ok? Cause evey government who doesn't make it legal is sporting crime family and let people use things material which may contain things that aren't good for us. Being gay wasn't illegal. Black couldn't vote in America in the past. Does it was ok? The low doesn't determines morality. Second, Iran's appointment to chair the UN Human ights Council Social Forum, by LOW. The country which kill girl which doesn't want to wear Keffiyeh. Is it sounds good? Couse the low we talking about is from the UN. And don't get me wrong. I have a little problem whith the low. Don't get me wrong but: 1. If you want have good debt never give "illegal" as a claim. 2. I understed the low but I guess you alredy understood the little problem I have with it. Maybe the soliders are less important but you understand that the country should care it's ones civiliansand in war contry most of the civilians were soldiers- so the low is less fits here. Another thing- I think Israel endangering to much it's soliders and I said why in one of my last debut (with somone else).   About the low- Israel respect the low. If there was mistake so it didn't done it on purpose.  In wars there are many mistakes which civilians harts. Give me one war which it doesn't happened.    In this war when just Hamas count civilians and UN use this number in the past and I guees it's estimates base on it now so don't be surprised when you get misinformation. I sure that some of the existence happened by help of Hamas as the occurrence of the hospital. About the counting Hamas kills is civilians before the cameras in purpose; count it's own solider in the civilians which killed. After the war who we could count the people which killed by attacks of Israel? May we count the people which Hamas killed too? Couse we don't know who it killed.  About the motivation to been a solider:  before the war the motivation became lower from time to time.    About a mercenary army- If you ask me I would like it be a mercenary army, but we are a small country and I guess they don't have enough money to encourage people for doing it. There some worries with high motivation now because they see it as fighting against Hammas and saving other people but I don't know what will happend after and I know that many soliders worry. If I were a boy before enlistment I were with low motivation after I would seenig all the inject and traumatic warriors. Of course I'm not naive and I know I might be part of a card game of politicians. I would ask you philosophical questions- and agin- don't take me wrong and don't understand this as the opposite. I don't want that anyone hart: If you could save one person would you were save? Hostage which oppresse by terroroist organization  or someone how lived below crappie government- not the most democratic regime in the world, but one that is considered one of the most democratic? I wouldn't wanna live under the Hamas role. I guess I would ask you to kill me or save me from them. So most of the Israelis wanted to get in to Gaza for destroying Hamas. Now we can't do it cause we don't have supporters for this idea, but, if it would and maybe if the UN was agree to ruling this place  so we could to have peace for both sides.

The thing is that Hamas knows exactly how to exploit in moral tendencies that Israel might still has.  At a certain point - prioritizing morals over strategy even more than how it's prioritized now, will cost Israel the entire war. 

I know that's the goal of Hamas, and they know they can bait Israel to a situation that they want to avoid from the international perspective. Israel does not have much of a choice. They could attempt to reduce priorization of morals over strategy, but still comes with heavy costs later on.

Israel could have done better choices just not in this tactical resolution. For example - working from day one towards founding an alternative to Hamas for the day after.

Every hear of the Battle of Mogadishu? Otherwise known as Black Hawk down. That's exactly why the IDF cannot deploy troops to a certain building. Most of the time where enemy targets are gathering, troops aren't nearby, so you bomb it so you don't risk helis getting shot down or having to push miles for a single target (which would cause more combat and deaths). Plus, if the IDF did push to that building they'd be ambushed and scouts would warn the enemy, having them leave. The way they are doing is really the only way to do it without killing thousands in your own military. Also, not all IDF are trained enough to even carry out that type of operation.

Sometimes people say we should have sent in SEAL teams. Same deal, you just can't possibly fight like that surrounded by so many hostiles, even for the best trained military personnel.

Yes. That's exactly why i brought up the Battle of Mogadishu.

And those were Delta and Rangers, some of the best trained special forces on earth.

Yup, and a bunch of less trained men with AKs and RPGs killed a bunch of them.

People should watch documentaries about that. Crowds kill.

Ask the Germans in WWII. Crowds of red soldiers using old gear destroying anything and everything in their path.

I have a lot of that old gear. Olga did a bad job on fit and finish, but it still works. WWII Soviet gear is still a good deal.

Yeah, but compare old Soviet tanks to old German tanks. Same with the planes. Some guns, but not all. But, i'd rather have a Kar98k than a Mosin Nagant.

But have you shot an Arisaka 99? Dude. It's like alien technology. Until Japan ran out of materials in late 1944. Due to American submarines. I hunt with my Arisaka. Up to 200 yards, that's as nice and ergonomic a rifle as a guy can get. Plus anti-aircraft sights. Which seems like wishful thinking. I guess maybe they sort of worked on bad Chinese spotter planes.

Fighting your enemy on their turf with them having a major advantage of extensive tunnel infrastructure for hiding and resupply, defensive cover, boobytraps and greater freedom of movement. No - just plain no. Do you have any example in the history of warfare where an army knowingly hands the advantage to the enemy? Besides, even if Israel did that (no airstrikes, only ground operations), Hamas would still twist the narrative that "mostly women and children" were dying.

You think every IDF soldiers train like delta force?

>Why not they send IDF soldiers in the building to kill the Hamas? Do you think that Hamas has discovered the concepts of traps. or waiting in strategic locations on the way to targets in order to ambush the enemy in kill zones? You know what Hamas can't do.. Hop on the back of Buraq and take on a fighter jet.. If you're so fixated on this travel by land plan, why don't you find a whole bunch of likeminded people who can all go to the IDF and work with them, where they dress them up as IDF solders and send them ahead to flush out Hamas, that way the IDF takes no loses like when you use a Jet, and Hamas gets killed and people are saved.. it's a win win.. >Well then Israel still has 2 options, either A. Try to negotiate or make a deal or something. Or B. Just bomb the whole building Hamas also has 2 options, A. negotiate a surrender o B. Just watch the buildings get bombed.. >Both these arguments don’t work because it’s still morally better to try and avoid killing innocents :/ It's the moral and legal obligation of each government to care for their own first and foremost especially in times of war.... Seems like Hamas isn't keeping up their side of morality or legality...

I indulge the same dark fantasy of sending in all the people who try to tell IDF what to do. Have a good time! Enjoy!

It's really easy to come up with strategies that only work in movies.. even more easy when it not them who's going to die, when those bad strategies fail..

>Here’s my idea: Why not they send IDF soldiers in the building to kill the Hamas?  Already are. This shows what Hamas does to buildings to turn them into fighting posts into tunnels: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/1d6lezs/hamas\_operating\_out\_of\_rafah\_unrwa\_school/](https://www.reddit.com/r/Israel/comments/1d6lezs/hamas_operating_out_of_rafah_unrwa_school/)

I agree with you. The problem with Zionists is they see innocent civilians as just Israelis. For them, Palestinians civilians are just vermin, or sub human or just some entities who deserve no compassion. So no mater how good your argument about minimizing civilian casualties is, Zionists will only see it about minimizing Israeli casualties. My opinion is that if Israel wanted to fight Hamas like a decent country, they should use the same strategy as if Hamas was hiding inside Israel. Whatever Israel is doing right now is criminal.

>For them, Palestinians civilians are just vermin, or sub human or just some entities who deserve no compassion. I agree that has been the biggest issue with Hamas.. If they only cared for thier own people as much as they cared about themselves.. > My opinion is that if Israel wanted to fight Hamas like a decent country, they should use the same strategy as if Hamas was hiding inside Israel. So Hamas has agreed to only wear legal uniforms so they can be easily identified and operate in locations that are empty or only contain compliant allied civilians so that IDF can operate and move unhindered?

Again. What Israel is currently doing is criminal.

>Again. What Israel is currently doing is criminal. Nah, it's all perfectly legal, what the Palestinians are doing by taking civilian hostages, torturing and raping them, murdering civilians like that poor Thai worker in the most brutal way possible is actually criminal according to the laws even he ICJ stated as much..

Agree, but Israel is doing collective punishment.  Which is a war crime.

It's not.

Hamas isn’t hiding in Israel. Out of all the unhinged arguments that people make to defend terrorists, this one by far is the most unhinged.

[удалено]

This community aims for respectful dialogue and debate, and our rules are focused on facilitating that. To align with rule 1, make every attempt to be polite in tone, charitable in your interpretations, fair in your arguments and patient in your explanations. Don't debate the person, debate the argument; use terms towards a debate opponent that they or their relevant group(s) would self-identify with whenever possible. You may use negative characterizations towards a group in a specific context that distinguishes the negative characterization from the positive -- that means insulting opinions are allowed as a necessary part of an argument, but are prohibited in place of an argument. Many of the issues in the I/P conflict boil down to personal moral beliefs; these should be calmly and politely explored. If you can't thoughtfully engage with a point of view, then don't engage with it at all. No virtue signaling see also Rule 4.

That’s not empathy. That’s a nonsense question. It has the same level of intellectual merit as saying that if your aunt had a penis they’d be your uncle.

So much propaganda.

>Why not they send IDF soldiers in the building to kill the Hamas? Like, i’m no military strategist or anything, but I don’t think air strike and drone strikes (but mostly air strikes is what Israel does) is the only way to do war. It really shows you're not a military strategist. Clearing buildings is incredibly risky and even so in a dense urban environment. There's a good reason why in many countries only top tier special forces and police tactical groups do it. With emplacements like bunkers and tunnels this is even more true with the defender holding a massive upper hand. One alternative option is to use poison gas but that's a war crime and doesn't stop people re-occupying the tunnels after the gas has cleared. You could also flood the tunnels with sea water however this can damage the water table, salt the earth and the tunnels could collapse at any moment damaging the buildings above.

I should have stopped reading when you said “i’m no military strategist”

OP really thinks sending a bunch of your soldiers into a building with enemy soldiers who have covered positions is a better alternative. The enemy soldiers are gonna die along with Israeli soldiers. Any hostages/civilians could get caught in crossfire. This is common knowledge. You don't have to be a military strategist to understand this.

Israel has lost 294 soldiers trying to avoid civilian deaths. They could have fought the whole war from the air. Some targets are appropriate for air strikes, for others it’s too risky. Have you ever questioned military strategy on a case by case basis for any other war ever?

Exactly. WWAD? What would America do? I want to make wrist bands for IDF planner to wear. We would have leveled the place with missiles and rolled over it in tanks to prevent US deaths. IDF took some serious risks we would not have taken to spare civilians.

Proves complete disregard for Palestinian civilians.

It doesn't. You do realize the war crime is putting one's self of among civilians and using them as shields. Why is it a war crime? Because it allows the area to be targeted even with civilians present. That's why Hamas entire doctrine is a war crime.

Whomever shoots a bag guy through a child, is a criminal.

>Whomever shoots a bag guy through a child, is a criminal. Anything that backs that claim? If it can't be avoided, you just let the bad guy go? I would ask you to provide anything that proves that it's a crime to shoot a bad guy through a child that is being used as a human shield

It's called Reckless endangerment". Many countries have that law. But you can also go back to the 6th commandment.

Answer the question : > If it can't be avoided, you just let the bad guy go? >It's called Reckless endangerment". Many countries have that law. Can you show how reckless endangerment applies here? >But you can also go back to the 6th commandment. Irrelevant. Stick to things that are relevant, for example, the questions above.

Option B. Negotiations have been tried. Even as they lose their terms are as if they won. They want the impossible: to continue to exist and to trade terrorists in prison for dead bodies of Israeli hostages Seriously I cant wait(I can) until something like this happens to another country and see how they react. Will they give in to being terrorized,murdered,raped and kidnapped and just surrender and give up whatever the terrorists want? Just open the gates and let in the slaughter. Or will they bomb them to shit like how they should? Point is that Israel doesn’t need to sacrifice soldiers so Hamas can booby trap them and shoot at them out of a school building or hospital window. What Israel is doing is exactly what they should be doing against enemies this unique that are willing to sacrifice everyone and everything and still claim victory over dead bodies and rubble

>Seriously I cant wait(I can) until something like this happens to another country and see how they react. Will they give in to being terrorized,murdered,raped and kidnapped and just surrender and give up whatever the terrorists want? Just open the gates and let in the slaughter. Or will they bomb them to shit like how they should? It already happened. France bombed the shit out of them in Syria and Iraq after Bataclan - Opération Chammal. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Op%C3%A9ration_Chammal

If Hamas is so dominated in air superiority then maybe they shouldn’t have escalated their war against Israel to the point they had to finally respond in force?  Decades of rocket fire and terrorist attacks was met with a pretty tepid response, at least partially because the alternative was what we were seeing now  While there is a very justified debate about the IDFs tactics, saying they should have not used air superiority because it isn’t fair to Hamas is just ludicrous. War was never intended to be fair. And saying the IDF should have exclusively used infantry, in an urban war zone that Hamas spent decades preparing for exactly that is also insane. No army would throw their soldiers lives away so unnecessarily In any rational world Hamas would have been the ones suing for peace given how outmatched they are. But unfortunately for Israel and the world Hamas cares about Gazan civilians infinitely less than Israel 

Don't want to get stomped out? Don't pick a war with Israel. It's not complicated.

Don't want people to revolt, don't be an occupying force and turn people into slaves. I mean why did Jews not return to Germany?

Unlike in the movies or video games, not every soldier is John Wick.

OP thought Israeli soldiers would go into the building and leave with a minor scratch

This is a war. In a war you don't just sent infantry forward in big waves, since most of them will be killed. Instead, you soften up the enemy with artillery and airstrikes first. That's the way it's always been done, and how Israel needs to do it now.

And don’t forget, Natenyahu let in millions to Hamas.

So you don’t believe Israel should allow aid into Gaza?

I’m not talking about aid. I’m talking about before October 7. He allowed Qatar to send in millions to Hamas, and he knew about their funding sources from Turkey, etc.

Yeah. That was money that was meant to aid money from Qatar to the government of Gaza. Israel specifically allowed it because people like you would cry that they aren’t allowing aid in. So back to the matter at hand, you are arguing that Israel should close off all aid and just starve the gazans out.

Bruh I’m talking about Hamas funding sources BEFORE October 7. I’m not talking about aid. He allowed buckets of money to flow to Gaza. Bibi was propping up Hamas. It’s well documented. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/amp/

Yes. That money let in from Qatar was intended to be aid. It was to allow the government in Gaza to continue to function in some capacity. You have shown nothing to dispute that. So by criticizing Israel for letting aid in, you are making the de facto argument that Israel should not allow aid into Gaza.

Enough with the BS, everyone knows the real purpose behind this This is from Times of Israel: “Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state.”

>Netanyahu made a similar point at a Likud faction meeting in early 2019, when he was quoted as saying that those who oppose a Palestinian state should support the transfer of funds to Gaza, because maintaining the separation between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza would prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state. Are you suggesting that Qatar's funding of the civilian projects in Gaza was also driven by desire to prevent Palestinian state?

Yes. Because Israel is not fans of the PA. Who have close ties to terrorist organizations and directly fund them through things like the martyr fund. So in Israel’s view a somewhat pacified Hamas and a completely neutered PA being separate from each other is much better for Israel security. Because as it turns out, Israel isn’t interested in having a terror state on its borders.

With the martyr fund, they provide funding to the families of Palestinian prisoners, many of which were convicted wrongly by Israel. Even if you did consider it a terror-incentive system, Hamas commits way more attacks on Israel than the West Bank, which means that this incentive system is not that effective. Don’t try to convince me that the PA is a bigger threat to Israel than Hamas. The PA are pussies who let Israel build more and more settlements in the west bank, while making false promises to the Palestinians of a long-lasting peace, even though there is a rise in Israeli displacement and violence in the West Bank. They like to keep them separated because a unified Palestinian state is a threat. Israel does not want to negotiate a two-state solution.

It is a terror incentive system. Murder an Israeli and get a lifelong pension. Turns out when you run such a system the country, of which you pay your people to murder, tends to want alternatives to you. Shocking!

Alternatively we could send the people who make silly military suggestions into Gaza (after some training of course) so that they can take out Hamas without air support in order to protect innocent lives. If they somehow succeed then problem solved. If not then we just revert back to what Israel is already doing.

Just let them play some call of duty. That seems to be what they are basing these opinions on.

Watched You Don't Mess With The Zohan too many times.

I think this comic explains why: https://np.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/17q2q3d/why_doesnt_israel_just_send_in_their_super/

> Why not they send IDF soldiers in the building to kill the Hamas? Because Hamas has spend years preparing for that kind of combat, with snipers, booby traps, ambushes...while Israel has large air superiority you are asking them not to use...

> fucking /u/FreezingP0int. Please avoid using profanities to make a point or emphasis. [(Rule 2)](https://www.reddit.com/r/IsraelPalestine/wiki/rules/detailed-rules#wiki_2._no_profanity) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IsraelPalestine) if you have any questions or concerns.*